E VALUACIÓN DE FACTORES QUE INCIDEN EN LA EFICIENCIA DE LA

Stakeholder responses further demonstrated that cultural heritage resources, particularly intangibles, are not promoted enough in tourism. One community member (Interview C1, 2012) asserted that she did not feel cultural heritage was being used adequately in tourism. She (ibid) added, “…I think they should. I think they will have to work on it, make it used more for our communities…so it doesn’t go away…when they do research on it, they find that it is very important in what Amerindians used to do before”. Another host community member (Interview C3, 2012) argued:

“No, I don’t think it’s being promoted enough. And it’s because I don’t think we have enough support from anywhere. It’s just during heritage time [Amerindian Heritage Month] you would find everybody having something

183

to celebrate just for that one month, and when heritage month finished, you don’t have no other activity to bring these individuals together again to see what they have and see the difference.”

Representatives from other stakeholder groups, including a member of the voluntary sector (Interview V1, 2012), also weighed in on the issue of whether or not cultural heritage is used enough in tourism:

“I don’t think so. I think when Guyana started tourism, everybody labeled what they did as ecotourism because that was the in-term at that time so the focus has continued to be nature. You’re seeing a slight devolving because people are starting to realise that they would not have had that amount of nature retained if there was not some community involvement. So from that aspect, you’re starting to see some of that being promoted. The more intangible things, like food for example…the traditional things, the bows and arrows, the implements for work, the whole necessities of modern invention which the Amerindians have embraced for a long time…that sort of thing is not adequately captured or promoted.”

An industry professional (Interview I5, 2012) shared these same viewpoints. As for the reasons behind it, she (ibid) argued:

“I think there has just been too little product development and focus on it. Who is promoting their cultural heritage, really? …Very few people wear their regalia, people don’t see the regalia, the traditional dishes, maybe you get a bit of it, but there’s not an emphasis on it. And I think it would be helpful to be an increased emphasis on it… It would be great for the communities for one thing, for them to keep their culture and also because it’s definitely of interest for the tourism market too.”

A voluntary sector member (Interview V4, 2012) agreed and discussed one village (Fair View) in particular where it has several cultural resources available but have yet to utilise them for tourism. She (ibid) emphasised how she does not “…think they understand the product or the potential of the product for them. Because I’m sure no one has really sat down with them yet and talked about it…I would like to talk with them more about that”. A local industry stakeholder (Interview I2, 2012) added that he also did not “…think everybody is fully aware of the need and potential….you’ve got the Makushi Research Unit which is probably an ideal means of working, but they need guidance and they need people who can vibrate and work to a checklist and a program that will get the desired results”. A member of the media (Interview M2, 2012) spoke of a recent tour guide training session and how the instructors were trying to encourage mentioning their lifestyles while interacting with tourists. He (ibid) specified:

184

“Teaching them how to interpret their surroundings through a story…think about the bigger picture because when we first started, it was birding and so a lot of people focused on birding, so it’s getting people to think outside that box. Just getting them aware that to them their normal life is normal, the daily grind of Surama village or wherever it is, but for visitors, think about pointing out the story of your normal lives.”

A separate media stakeholder (Interview M2, 2012) shared similar thoughts on how the daily aspects of Rupununi life are important for tourism, but not always used. He (ibid) recalled:

“One of the reasons why I think they are not promoted enough…before tourism became such a great awareness among the folks of the North Rupununi, language, customs, culture, art were on the decline. Because it had no meaning for anyone…yeah, you had a few persons who would come around and we understood that they were tourists, but tourists is those people with big money who have no interests in people like us, that was the thought. So why would I be interested in tourists? …For that reason, I feel the culture and artwork and everything was going. Not until we recognized we need to sell some of our cultural skills in the tourism market. ‘But we don’t have it, it’s not available on the shelf’ so we have to make it available, to make it available is to bring it back alive.”

This viewpoint indicates that similar to the natural resources (e.g. trapping of birds), tourism can provide a value for cultural resources. However, the notion that culture must be ‘sold’ can be contradictory. Instead, it may be better for this, and other, stakeholders to use cultural resources in tourism as both a safeguarding measure and economic driver. Additional stakeholder viewpoints were diverse but followed similar themes. A tourist (Interview T4, 2012) described the scarcity of cultural heritage resources, listing “…the music, or dance, none of that, or rituals, art”. A voluntary sector member (Interview V3, 2012) argued, “I think that’s a problem actually. I think the problem is that we are in the process of erosion of a lot of those things and tourism could be one of many ways to be an incentive to retain some of that stuff”. Interestingly, a public sector stakeholder (Interview P1, 2012) remarked, “It is being promoted, not really in the Rupununi but mainly to tourists…it happens in the communities but I do not think it is so widespread”. This comment suggests that cultural heritage may not regularly be celebrated amongst Rupununi communities, but rather mostly used for tourism.

One central reason why cultural heritage is not shared with tourists could simply be because not all Amerindian communities wish to “…commercialize their cultural practices” (Griffiths & Anselmo, 2010: 15). Indeed, interviewees stated that

185

communities may not want to share certain aspects of their cultural heritage simply because it’s not an activity they wish to take part in. For example, a public sector stakeholder (Interview P2, 2012) commented:

“…you would find now that [cultural heritage] is not promoted so much in the Rupununi… The culture is there but it’s not an everyday something…it’s not every day you find people that want to get into the business of dancing. If we have a set of tourists coming, we’re not going to tell [name #1] or [name #2] that you have to grate cassava, because that’s the everyday life of people…it’s not that they do it for the tourists to see. That’s their living.” Other stakeholders agreed that attempting public displays of performing art is something they do not typically associate with Amerindian communities in the Rupununi. A voluntary sector member (Interview V2, 2012) commented that she “…found that [communities] are not very open about their lives… found that the villagers to still be very shy…but those who are being involved in [cultural heritage tourism], they are trying to ensure that they do understand who they are, what their culture is about”. This thought was echoed by a public sector member (Interview P3, 2012) who noted, “Traditionally Amerindians are very shy people, they’re very private people, and you can’t expect them to adopt something they are not comfortable with… so doing dances and so on, they’re not really comfortable”.

One community that has been a so-called ‘exception to the rule’ has been Surama (Figure 6.3). As mentioned in Chapter Five (Sub-section 5.4.2.1), Surama is the flagship of community-based cultural tourism in the Rupununi. The main cultural heritage attractions in Surama include cultural tours of the village and performances by their cultural group involving traditional songs, dance and stories (Funnell & Bynoe, 2007: 172; Smock, 2008: 236; Chan, 2012: 26; CI, 2010: 15). A community member from Surama (Interview C4, 2012) described the cultural group, stating:

“They compose their own songs, they write them, put the tune to them. And they travel, they went out of the country, to China and so on, portraying their culture. We normally go to Brazil and things. Our culture is our identity, so we want to maintain it and let others know, it is your culture, you should not be ashamed of it.”

186

Figure 6.3: Surama Ecolodge

Culture has been an “invaluable asset” for Surama as the use of poems, songs and crafts have brought further income to the community (Bynoe, 2006: 15). Bynoe (2006: 15), a Guyanese academic, has stated, “It may be recalled that artisans within the community was a major group that benefited from the ecotourism business. The view, however, contradicts those expressed by the representative of the Amerindian Peoples Association that culture is intrinsic and should not be commercialized”. This last sentence is possibly the shared opinion of other communities in the Rupununi who have yet to pursue more cultural tourism activities. Nonetheless, cultural heritage tourism has become celebrated in Surama and CI (2010: 64) has declared that “…the richness of the cultural aspects of the Rupununi, and of Surama in particular, is so special that it can be one of the most important attractions in the region”. Recent findings by Bynoe (2006: 14-15) have found that over 80% of households in Surama believe that tourism has led to the preservation and revitalisation of their culture. She (ibid) further states:

“One community elder who noted that people were once ashamed to talk about their way of life, however, currently ‘they are thrilled to share their culture and still do not fully understand why people from across the world would travel great distances and at great expense to visit a community that

187

was so ordinary’. Thus ecotourism helped to foster a sense of pride within the community and greater self-esteem of individuals.”

When asked about cultural heritage tourism in the Rupununi, respondents often pointed to Surama. A host community member (Interview C2, 2012) concurred, adding that there is “…not very much, besides Surama. They have their culture group”. A community member from Surama (Interview C3, 2012) noted that although she was pleased with their cultural programmes, she was “…not sure about the rest of the communities because they are not fully involved in tourism…but for us, it helps us because we are still practicing the dances, the shows and things like that”. She (ibid) also added that regarding the impacts on cultural heritage, she feels tourism “…has more positive impacts than negative impacts”. A local industry professional (Interview I4, 2012) argued that because of the success of cultural tourism in Surama, “…people are now seeing that having a cultural part of tourism is a good idea and so people are going to keep practicing”. Relating to the success of Surama’s cultural programme, another community member (Interview C3, 2012) acknowledged that it “…has to start from the community level. And then from there you move on and people would see what you are trying to do…and be there to help you in some way”. Starting from the community level is a key solution to the issue of authenticity, the topic for the following sub-section.

6.5.2 Authenticity

One central issue with the presentation of cultural heritage in tourism today is the tourist expectation of an authentic experience (CI, 2010: 7). It is important to note that ‘authenticity’ is a complex and elusive concept (Timothy, 2011: 115; Timothy & Boyd, 2003: 237). Authenticity within tourism represents more than a historically accurate product, which many authors deem to be impossible (Timothy, 2011: 117). Instead, authenticity is about portraying the past, or present, in an accurate manner (Timothy & Boyd, 2003: 237). It has become one of the most “pressing debates” recently in the fields of heritage and tourism (ibid). Furthermore, a key idea within this debate is that of a ‘staged authenticity’, or the process of staging local circumstances for tourist consumption (Timothy & Boyd, 2003: 240). Timothy and Boyd (2003: 240-242) argue that there is a front stage where the interaction with tourists occurs and there is a back stage where the heritage performances remain “authentic and true”. Timothy (2011:

188

110-111) adds to this by arguing that if a heritage performance is still carried out in the back stage, “then it must be legitimate”.

Some would argue that staged authenticity does not truly matter for tourists, either because they simply just want to have an “enjoyable experience” (Timothy, 2011: 103), or they cannot make a distinction between “authentic and inauthentic” (Timothy & Boyd, 2003: 242). Urry (2002: 9-10; also see Wang, 1999) elaborates on this debate and argues that culture is not static and continually shifts and is remade so the process of “inauthentic staging” is no different from the processes of “cultural remaking” that happens naturally. A tourist’s sense of authenticity is in fact constructed by their beliefs, interpretations, past experiences and perspectives. Subsequently, tourism should not necessarily be about the “search for authenticity” (ibid). Ultimately, the researcher agrees with Urry and feels that authenticity should not be a key ‘attraction’ in tourism as everything is in fact authentic as it already is. However, authenticity can be a central issue in valuing tourism products and experiences so the notion of authenticity is comparatively measured against tourism offerings in the Rupununi.

Interviewees were quickly to point out that the Rupununi tourism product remains ‘authentic’ in the eyes of tourists, primarily because local people are still living traditional lifestyles on a daily basis. These traditional lifestyles include, for example, the production of cassava, basket weaving, and hunting. On demonstrating traditional practices for tourism, a community member (Interview C2, 2012) stressed, “We do it just because, not because we like it, but because you have to do it. It’s part of the routine in the village”. On whether or not the cultural tourism product was authentic in the Rupununi, an industry stakeholder (Interview I1, 2012) asserted, “Absolutely, because it’s not a lot of places you can go and still experience that”. Another industry member (Interview I3, 2012) added, “It will not be classified as staged authenticity because that’s their daily livelihood, that’s their sustainable livelihood. They’re not going to put it on because they hear you coming. You will come and meet them doing it”. The researcher learned that performance art is a much less practiced aspect of cultural heritage amongst the communities. In relation to this, a local industry stakeholder (Interview I4, 2012) stated that demonstrating cultural dances and songs will only be done by communities “…because they want to show how it used to be, but it’s not really an everyday thing, just trying to reflect history…they usually do it for the sake of culture”.

189

Tourist interviewees also took notice of the authenticity of Rupununi tourism. One tourist (Interview T1, 2012) stated that he thought the experience “…was quite authentic” because “…it was that they didn’t do these dances in the evening. You could get that if you want…” but communities chose to carry on with their normal routine instead of specially performing for tourists. Another tourist (Interview T2, 2012) argued that performance aspects of cultural heritage tourism can often feel forced and so he personally did not favour them. He (ibid) stated, “Some places it can look natural, other places, you see the guys are working up there and in the evening they go down and find their feathers and make a tribal dance and to me that feels phony…I think the important thing is if it means something to them”. Based on these statements, the lack of performance arts in Rupununi tourism can be favourable to both host communities and tourists alike. It would appear that there must be ‘meaning’ behind the cultural resources displayed for tourism. This meaning is best achieved with the host community selecting the heritage resources which they are most comfortable sharing.

This notion of presenting a fabricated show through performances was also discussed amongst many stakeholders and is considered to be one of the most “...often cited cultural forms” which deals with authenticity (Timothy & Boyd, 2003: 242). An industry member (Interview I2, 2012) stressed that “put-on shows” are of no interest to him. He (ibid) added, “We definitely don’t want that. It has to come through the management and direction of the people themselves who feel it in their bones and do what they feel is right, instead of being stage-managed by outsiders”. A voluntary sector stakeholder (Interview V2, 2012) described the situation as “a very thin line” where communities need to avoid adapting “to a visitor’s needs”. This point was also mentioned by another voluntary sector member (Interview V3, 2012) who elaborated on its relevance to safeguarding cultural heritage. He (ibid) argued, “…having a show put on for tourists, like basket weaving or something, that wouldn’t work. I think it has to be integrated as a larger part of the understanding of the importance of culture and these practices…They have to be part of the everyday life”. A community member (Interview C3, 2012) emphasised that putting on a show and demonstrating aspects of their culture that are not part of the daily routine is a special event. She (ibid) stated:

“We have some people who want to come see the culture, want to see how we live here, they want to be with us. And we would do, other than going to the homes and farms, we would put on a show for them just to see how it used to be in the olden days…That’s why I was saying only [during

190

Amerindian Heritage Month] you would see these kind of dances and performances”.

Ultimately, drawing from this input, the researcher argues that authenticity is indeed an elusive concept which is difficult to capture. However, the researcher also argues that communities should only share those cultural heritage resources which they are comfortable demonstrating and that have ‘meaning’ to them. This will help to ensure that both the possessors of the resource and the visitors are satisfied with an authentic tourism experience. Currently, ‘performances’ of the daily practices of communities (e.g. cassava grating) are authentic and have meaning because most Amerindian livelihoods depend on it. However, the support of performing ‘arts’ (e.g. dances, songs) appears to vary based on individual communities and therefore should always be contextually considered by each one.

6.6 Conclusions

The aim of this chapter was to expand on the regional tourism profile constructed in Chapter Five. In particular, specific areas of significance within the Rupununi structure have been examined to analyse their relevance to the research question. In comparison to Chapter Five, Chapter Six used data from the semi-structured interviews as its primary source for evaluating stakeholder motivations and perceptions on these particular issues. For example, Chapter Five identified that cultural heritage tourism was not as common as nature-based tourism in the Rupununi while Chapter Six further explored stakeholder viewpoints on why this has occurred and issues relating to cultural heritage tourism.

Within this chapter, a number of themes were explored that included: the distribution of information; the need for a cohesive plan to link the region together; heritage resource